HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe correction 2006 Archaeology survey by ESI (FMSF #13871) did not test WESTERN half of property (6)Alan: What you seem to be missing and I'm not sure it is intentional or
not that the eastern half of the property has already been developed.
It has a 36 miniature golf course on it, with several ponds dug to 10',
now a Dollar General (time of the report a defunct restaurant), and the
section that the proposed Cumberland Farm sites on has 3 buildings (two
story house, duplex, and a foundation for a house that was torn down)
all on the eastern section. This section of the land is clearly label
disturbed land on the report and has no archaeology value because the
land has been previously developed and does not meet the state standard
for archaeology sites. If you are proposing all developed land in that
area has to meet a higher standard then state and federal law I suggest
you have no standing to make such a request and that you are either
misinformed or politically motivated in the "stop the redevelopment" of
the site. Either way I do not think you are doing the mission of the
Brevard County Historical Commission by your actions. When you sit on a
public board I would think one of the minimum requirements is following
the laws of the land, including laws on archaeology sites. I believe
(do not have the report in front of me while I'm responding to this
email) that page 28 of the 43 page report clearly shows this.
Sent from Bob's iPad
On Oct 15, 2014, at 6:16 AM, Alan Brech <aebrech@aol.com> wrote:
Sorry, I keep getting my east-west confused. Replace "eastern"
in previous email with "western" etc.
thanks,
Alan Brech
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Brech <aebrech@aol.com>
To: Timothy.Parsons <Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com>;
D.Dickey <D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org>
Cc: R.Randels <R.Randels@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; B.Petsos
<B.Petsos@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; B.Walsh
<B.Walsh@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; J.Bond
<J.Bond@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; B.Hoog
<B.Hoog@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; agarganese
<agarganese@orlandolaw.net>; kkopp <kkopp@orlandolaw.net>; D.Greene
<D.Greene@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; A.Apperson
<A.Apperson@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; T.Morley
<T.Morley@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; Jeffrey.Lucas
<Jeffrey.Lucas@atkinsglobal.com>; gtoenjes <gtoenjes@cfl.rr.com>;
bbaugher <bbaugher@cfl.rr.com>; rko153 <rko153@gmail.com>; Ari
<Ari@cumberlandfarms.com>; ricksbigart tional <ricksbigart@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 7:10 am
Subject: 2006 Archaeology survey by ESI (FMSF #13871) did not
test eastern half of property
Dear Doctor Parsons and Mr. Dickey (and distinguished
co-recipients):
ESI's map from their 2006 report (Figure 5, page 21, FMSF
#13871) clearly shows that ESI did not conduct any subsurface testing on
the eastern half of the property in question (6455 N. Atlantic Ave. Cape
Canaveral, FL, called "Cabo Verde" in ESI documents).
If you consult that map you will see that ESI did not excavate
any tests along the eastern half of the property, and, perhaps just as
important, did not place a sufficient number of tests along the relict
dune line that roughly bisects the property, an landform that has been
known from nearby sites to often contain prehistoric sites.
How could this happen? Perhaps the 2006 "area of impact" was
different than the present-day "area of impact?" From my experience in
both contract archaeology in general and as a technician who has worked
for ESI and for Mr. Brent Handley, it is too often the case that
archaeology companies limit their sub-surface testing to the areas
specified by the client as the "area of impact." Once given the "all
clear" by the archaeology company and the Division of Historic
Resources, the client then shifts the area of impact.
Regardless how it came to be that half the property was not
tested, the ESI survey was plainly deficient for the current proposed
impacts--the eastern portion of the site was never tested and the
central portio of the site was not tested sufficiently.
yours,
Alan Brech
Chairman, Brevard County Historical Commission
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Osborne <info@a1aresearch.com>
To: Rick Piper <ricksbigart@gmail.com>; Alan Brech
<AEBrech@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 12:56 pm
Subject: Fwd: FW: Cabo Verde Tract
I followed up with Mr. Parson to see if David Dickey left
anything out. Here you go. Nice long exchange
of email with important points that David leaves out.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Parsons, Timothy A. <Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:21 AM
Subject: FW: Cabo Verde Tract
To: Ray Osborne <rko153@gmail.com>
Hello Ray,
Here is the email exchange that I had with David last week.
Best,
Tim
Timothy Parsons, Ph.D., RPA
Compliance Review Supervisor | Deputy State Historic
Preservation Officer | Bureau of Historic Preservation | Division of
Historical Resources | Florida Department of State | 500 South
Bronough Street | Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | 850.245.6333 |
1.800.847.7278 | Fax: 850.245.6439 | www.flheritage.com
<http://www.flheritage.com/>
From: Parsons, Timothy A.
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 3:53 PM
To: 'David Dickey'
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Good afternoon,
No further investigation is required or requested by the state
in the area covered by the survey report, because the area was
previously surveyed to Florida standards as part of a permit application
process (pursuant to Ch. 267 and 373, Florida Statutes). I can’t speak
to local (county, city, etc.) requirements. Based on the information
that we have, it seems that the entire tract was surveyed. That said, I
have not seen the boundary/project area for the proposed project, so it
is possible that part of the project area remains surveyed if it is not
contiguous with the surveyed area in the report.
Best,
Tim
Timothy Parsons, Ph.D., RPA
Compliance Review Supervisor | Deputy State Historic
Preservation Officer | Bureau of Historic Preservation | Division of
Historical Resources | Florida Department of State | 500 South
Bronough Street | Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | 850.245.6333 |
1.800.847.7278 | Fax: 850.245.6439 | www.flheritage.com
<http://www.flheritage.com/>
From: David Dickey [mailto:D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:43 PM
To: Parsons, Timothy A.
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Dr. Parsons – I have another question related to the Cabo Verde
tract (BR 1936) in Cape Canaveral. First, let me spell out the issue
and share several observations.
On August 8, 2014, the City received the attached letter from
the Brevard County Historical Commission regarding its recommendation
for further archaeological analysis of the entire property on which the
BR 1936 site is located. The impetus for the Commission’s letter is the
proposed development of the northeast portion of the Cabo Verde Tract,
adjacent to A1A.
The Commission indicates in its letter that the “2006 survey did
not test the entire property going to the east, towards Highway A1A.”
This is their justification for further analysis. However, in Section
I. Introduction, of the Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Cabo
Verde Tract (Study), which is attached, it states that the survey
includes a 10.61 acre property, between U.S. 1 and the Banana River.
Further, page 2 (Project Location Map) and page 5 (Soils Map) of the
Survey shows the project boundary, which includes the area from the
river to A1A (U.S. 1). In fact, page 21 of the Survey shows that
several sites (BR 1939 & BR 1940) on the extreme east end of the study
area, adjacent to A1A were evaluated.
My understanding is that no further investigation is required of
the 10.61 acre Cabo Verde Tract prior to its development. Should any
research be conducted of the Cabo Verde Tract, it will be voluntary on
the part of the property owner. This understanding is largely based on
the position you articulate in your email below.
Now for my question…would you agree that no further
investigation within the 10.61 acre project area is required prior to
its development?
Should you have any questions or would like to discuss this
further, please call me at (321)868-1221, ext. 11. Thank you for your
assistance with this. Dave
From: Parsons, Timothy A.
[mailto:Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 3:03 PM
To: David Dickey
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Yes, that is correct (though we recommend avoidance of the site
whenever possible). The exception would be if human remains or
significant amounts of archaeological material were to be uncovered
during development. At that point, Ch. 872.05 requires consultation
with the Division regarding human remains, and most state/federal
permits contain conditions requiring notification if archaeological
material is discovered.
Any research that takes place at this point is voluntary, would
be a collaboration between the property owner and the researcher(s), and
does not involve DHR. Though, if any archaeological work does take
place, we would be pleased to receive an updated Site File form and a
copy of the report for our records.
Tim
Timothy Parsons, Ph.D., RPA
Compliance Review Supervisor | Deputy State Historic
Preservation Officer | Bureau of Historic Preservation | Division of
Historical Resources | Florida Department of State | 500 South
Bronough Street | Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | 850.245.6333 |
1.800.847.7278 | Fax: 850.245.6439 | www.flheritage.com
<http://www.flheritage.com/>
From: David Dickey [mailto:D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 2:40 PM
To: Parsons, Timothy A.
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Dr. Parsons - Thank you for your quick response. My
understanding of your email is that if a site has been determined to be
ineligible for listing, the State will not require protective measures
be taken during its development. And, any further investigation or
protection once a finding of ineligible has been made, will be voluntary
on the part of the property owner. Is that correct? Thanks! Dave
From: Parsons, Timothy A.
[mailto:Timothy.Parsons@dos.myflorida.com]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:06 PM
To: David Dickey
Cc: Todd Morley; David Greene
Subject: RE: Cabo Verde Tract
Good afternoon,
BR1936 is the only archaeological site recorded as part of the
2006 survey of the Cabo Verde Tract. The site was evaluated as
ineligible for listing on the National Register at that time, as I noted
in my letter to Mr. Osborne in 2013.
Unless a state or federal permit (Water Management District,
Corps of Engineers, DEP) will be necessary for the development, no
further review by the Division of Historical Resources is required under
law. If a permit is required, we will review it for impacts to eligible
sites pursuant to Ch. 267, Florida Statutes, and/or Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Since the site was
determined to be ineligible in 2006, it is unlikely that my office would
request any specific course of action as regards the preservation or
investigation of the site. That said, we obviously have no objection to
further investigation of the site before it is destroyed, as long as
such a project involves a professional archaeologist and proceeds with
the permission of the landowner.
It is not unusual for human remains to be present at
archaeological sites in Volusia County (and along this stretch of coast
generally). If human remains were to be encountered during development
regardless of eligibility status, all work must stop and notification
procedures to law enforcement and the State Archaeologists office must
be followed pursuant to Ch. 872.05, Florida Statutes.
I hope that this has been helpful. Please let me know if I can
answer any other questions.
Best,
Tim
Timothy Parsons, Ph.D., RPA
Compliance Review Supervisor | Deputy State Historic
Preservation Officer | Bureau of Historic Preservation | Division of
Historical Resources | Florida Department of State | 500 South
Bronough Street | Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | 850.245.6333 |
1.800.847.7278 | Fax: 850.245.6439 | www.flheritage.com
<http://www.flheritage.com/>
From: David Dickey [mailto:D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 2:18 PM
To: Parsons, Timothy A.
Cc: Todd Morley; David Greene
Subject: Cabo Verde Tract
Dr. Parsons – by way of this email I would request your
assistance in determining the status of the Cabo Verde Tract (BR 1936)
that is within the city limits of Cape Canaveral.
The City has received a development application for a site that
may include a portion(s) of the Cabo Verde Tract. As part of the City’s
due diligence, we are reaching out to your office to: 1- determine what
resources are on the site; 2- if these resources are of a quality to
warrant preservation; and, if so, 3 - what measures are required by the
State to protect these resources.
In the attached letter you indicate that site BR 1936 is
ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places. I have also
included a letter (below) from Mr. Frederick Gaske, with the State
Historic Preservation Office, dated June 1, 2006, where he states his
office concurs with the finding by Environmental Services, Inc. that
development of the Cabo Verde site “will have no effect on cultural
resources listed or eligible to be listed in the NRHP, or otherwise of
historical, architectural, or archeological value.”
Thank you for your assistance with this matter and I look
forward to hearing from you. If it would be helpful, I can be available
for a phone conference at any time.
Dave
<image001.png>
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any
written communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
@ItsWorkingFL
<image002.jpg> <https://twitter.com/ItsWorkingFL>
The Department of State is committed to excellence.
Please take our Customer Satisfaction Survey
<http://survey.dos.state.fl.us/index.aspx?email=Timothy.Parsons@dos.myfl
orida.com> .
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any
written communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written
communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written
communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written
communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written
communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral
officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or
media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email
addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address
released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic
email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing
됿떏ﾓ³ಞ꿲꿝較��꼂ӿﳿﴏＯｯ翫鼏꼐�缇輈ឿ녟梍聴昆 灴⼺䈯ⅷ⸐汦牨楰ሉ旁ᰮ洠∯传쀒逜悖 扟왮ᵫ疬敠摬≕倡尃㖠琰䡻偙쁅䱒义⁋鼠ꨡ峠湜絽Ĥ値5槠ㄑ⾫輚⼋㼌伍ỻ♋浟鼗꼘＃Ｑ弙ヿ؟ヿ㓯⥿⫯⳿ⴏ？弞引漖⼵輷鼸꼹뼛㷏䍟꪿⠯믟䊯䢯ｿ轉齊꽋뽌轐ག㼳ཕ囿土堯夿剏ኙ�䞀뽗舿顒‒⬒뀼셄呶劯柿錿꽞뽟怷懏叟㙹ご挠鱗鲠䗠䶐끲䕎淠鱿䞀嬿ǯ榐娿燃㍠㘾䀒逨⁔ဤ㉳嫽曡愿罚靭愿ᑮ뽮濿
烏營狯䟿䓏䔟䘯＿⽩콶뽎콏�ὤ佾篿糟華罯耏蘟哏｟㽵例後澍美辏ཪ�嵿揯訏覿昏眿뎓㡰諿靇顿枏窕靿鬯期ᕋ畸祢搐倯眭ᡩ瑤㱨㲑⃰敭⓹痐ꉭ㭥ꇠ硕祳ꌰ遨끬㭮攰鎤ꎻ硇㋩⁺皦栩牵倠䀻硃ꟲ㭛嗠肊⑤柑べꈳぁ⓿ꧠ竒鵟黟柯栯ﾟ彪꾯罬轭⽵ུήﾵ띿렏뤟萬訏ꭽ眯批뷥抋覻牆ဢ㳯⎊뽃雺慄ꑶ䑱榀正祥嬠 꼦㭀璠㩯⹄쐉䃤Ⅳ禠景灡졥湐郄倯傯ၹ⍧╟왦죿／ᓉ�આ࿌῍Ꮙ㿃빻㖏巸鼾꼿�劕櫓Ʈ牢覽Ƴ삤₁鿘흿픜詏�뾟쁟匠ꜟ송싟
⽸摠祡秇㳰旰扭倯z㤒ꆦ㨲老⃠䵐㿙俚忛濜걢쀟哋ꃐ俣忤曥ཐ킓楔潭ꇳ연䄰뵟㾏鿩念뿫쿬�퇢扵檞胈⿰䣥䕒べ䏤ꅡ⁐⽖ꅐýᾅῸ㾇뿾ἁ˿ԯӏՏय़�펟൯ﾯ뼎켏�ྒᾓ⾔㾕伒樂ᚯតᢟᪿᯏ⾭㾮侯澱羲辳듿⢟뭟⨟⭿ⲏگ＿伇弈漉缟ྂᾃ㼱㋿㡏㓏ᅯ㵏㹿㾏䂟ﾯ⼥４⼞㼟鼻弡漢⏿♿▯䲟➏⢿⻏⼿ｏ⼮�ｔ㼰㿳彸潹䰣䉯䐃웱ⴠ棰䁚胑⁵曎ƨᅟ샗畱䁛敶逷ᇲ㟿㡯⁻䷲ヅ湵膡灚䁚䊩郑葟ꃦ懐椠
灞ꆵ懰傢㡩와獰惑ꓟ廐廀Ꟁ₠股郦䳿꓁킀析攁꒠俀楧婢徠佃嫰ꥰ睑키慓晰ꆡ泀㯿ꑀꊠ왐徠웡ꦠ섀ﾠ郦ぇ키炢灋炧偠ힿ墿涯䝳棰慁앰０䅧炧鉤惑灞股탈[烾炢უ콠�缸뽲콳䅗d䁚ヅꝦ彰Ë탈腩晧椀꒟撰淀毰窦渂ꑣ烆䃊睤票흦⁌股檻梓癁앲ＰźŅ傢텤⍿ꃁ烈绀矑삤彵潶ﭢ䧞앥膧脿舟ﭢ덞ⅳ併྆轴뾈觿巏졗姁㨟詟㲿䝿ﾯ美辏⾓꾑뾒辖켌佖鯿鰏鴟鸯䌿䑏䕟䙯ｿ꾟齈꽉띊罜꾥뾦轊䯹梑尵ꥯꪏꮟ䮯ﾏ徭꽍澲콏�ﾞ
彗꾷룿릿뫏壟奏婟孯둿ｯ꾾龔꾕뾖꾤⿆⾌徊쏿쒿쯏왏쟯컿骯밿Ｏ⿓㿔俕忖龠꾡뾢쾣껏꽿ꢏ숏��끟䗀 脀큽㦠Á瀱避浵㬕gᓥ䏀Áꂱ삵朿櫰柠샷ㆹസ燁뀱솠㋀㌲Ⴑ遾쁃귰僒摤솂㌀礰ｐ苭⿂迡鿢㾰侱修澳땟뚏벟봏묟刺絛ힿ쿻྾Ჿ戻㿿便쁇楔縠ⶐ慦끧�㩹挄聦�霐㗗聆洰턺Ｏ㿒！礈切Ἂ＂༄ἅڏ茯幷섕哀浩桪끸嵁寰弍恦嵨쁦斐桢㨐ᔓĮᕞ摀獯洮ꙹ쁦憀쀮涰筻梀撐ዉ〗腤䃀{奈䕐䱒义䮜ᔠᙟᝯ絶
ぞ凾촱᪼ᮏ徟萗Ἄ翗，딈ᅡ崐氯淟⏯�㇢뇱牢ᇿ枱죐⟰┿Ꮌß﷿ᜢ牓ܱ菏ݷឰﹱ셹⻀旰材☐襰ꇪ삿㨱ﲰ䵐�Ｉ༫Ἤ⼭⋽合〟⼯㼰蚃ㆎ⇨䓲Š祥Ｔ༶ἷ㣧㤯∿䌈㭣㰏蜟�揠산샠祰됽䟾で沎伿彀潁罂䏣ⶏ痽橢솄齅꽆草剷셅䌀 囎ၤꁞ慲킄⽎쳿䳯켿刏嗟嘿奏壯ｯ罙佝Ἁ༢콡�､����曏䵯櫏ﾯ뽫콬�ｯཱ�柿籏ﹿￏ齾꽿뾀쾁彚潛罜轝珿薟줏쫟藯號豯裯ﾏ潥龑꾒뾓쾔佹ཨὩ狿獏轟疿癿瞏窟秏꾠�徂
澃侂ﾦྨ萟ൟ삏섯ꀿ随䜣澢偈愠㉦牰僨Ⱡ㾭美龬龐쾛돿럿뚟뜟먯惿ꫯ뽯ｿ迀鿁꿂澗羘辙龚ῄ鳿鶿黏鿟ꃯꋿꌏꐟＯ㾥꾪뾫쿓�ￖ�귿꺿꿏탟�맏�믯ｯ忉辊龋꾌�濧봟쎯ｿ俅忆濇翈鿊꿋뿌췿켯탯�펟ğ�ﾟ鼃꼄뼅켆꿹鿛꿜뿝�䋊㉒Ǡ⁀獩倓쁔쀒፬捀棨敡ℌ㹧ﴠୠﺐ㉩兰ఐ呀늰༡綀ㇶུྰʢ㎠玑疸癲倾瘒㹔忟퀺넏⌑ቷ攁盲惽慵瀲 Ⴅ拀퀋映䀌Ġ嬠ꀋཧ࿑亓䀙ဠ敒쀐ꀋ넲䀙༷Ბῂ敠Ē⁉닿ᦐ䱑⛟
य़ở泥䬠고洠တ퀋ᱴ璂恔䷀传味뉐쁔ℳᔳᘯੌｏ쿨㼠�ἧ⼨켫伪⯿⽟ܟ㍿㒯㖿㛏翴迵鿶꿷伸쿹�ﳿ／ įȿݏࢿￏｇཉὊ⽋༾켊�䓿亿ⷿ卿⼟㶟⒏┯＿￦པὕ齛㽗佘༲�㟿揯摿斏暟㦯㩿㮏ﾟ꼼彠켾�ａ彨ὄ䗿䰯䟏畏䶯矏磏租뿯ｺ�콏�禍ཕ绰灥닠缰ᧁቁὰ晠ṗᐠႀ烱耔ᅭ‰⡬ᥗὁ䵠ꁿ끙啥思ቮ䑠섚ၲ瓐膵䍐炀ኀ䖁ᤋᓁ玀傁䕄⥐ᡩ榠嵬拠퀒퀙｣憃灪တ爚ꈏꀔ瀓悀烾ኆ傁邲怚倓ꄏ怟ᇡ癰敩衷ა༐�悆킋‑ㄛ脒ᩈ胁罰판〜ぱ
倓ㆉ戏瀑籱極瀑㼞伟ｽ昡葮ᩱ憠⑷娟ᜏ빌婉菠蒠軕膩睐鄘裿订薵ᨑᵲ扐ᕠༀﾁ倔∑ᄒ倓䀓ꁿ턜ᒉ䍐⍨㈀㜶�遗鄯縿槙�鹩䘹肩楡荤厠톃驵㯑傁㽡鼯淺罩撠ﴯ脚ᅓᮀ臂፠ሑᮅ嚍倠瀑ᑳᦀꔀ컣ᕁሀི㘠錶钏ﶟ䰗ᥓ觀༰ᢓᑧᲠﾁ 퀙₲넢줙ꌣဓ臯靐鈔痰歐㊌서⊻ሑ暀퀐鄘ゎᥬ罰튎悃怒ꁿတ삪耑ｩ醱ꁰㆎエ爒Ēᇕ杰灪ཤ炄᪨炀鳿鵟鹯ⅿ፷ᩰ듑뛰４鐒∑辩龪丗서悉킡韙濳譢軐猰Đ怐詰뿲檐얥넢㚋⾺걿裧⍱鞁ᐣ蚠澁秾튗Ē悀ěĒ䀓倐雿쒢산쇒
胲쉐옡萔ｐ퐛㤐鎲瀙䇆らわ袀ྐ떠葄쟢ዃ灶燎睯퀙쾻�⽛뛿럟黯峏巟廯꓿턟ﾟ꿒뿓쿔�꿙⽢ｦ�牟榿檟殯�ￏｯཱ⾂⽳㿭併盿籟�？�ﾀ㿯翹ￗ࿙Ὶ️촿츿﹏ﾏڟğ켂远鿝濢－༏ἐ⼑ਯｯ翬迭鿮꿯俷쿱㿷俸⋿⍏╯著ﭏﱟﵯ糽靉謣븀鋠뿰鯠耈늉畨“倪“껿駀裓뗡蚓넱접赉�뒚熯⩖뿰槠ꂃ鋿⫰薀줰ᰢ씰쩢끀Ｑ膆삭熦瀛쳷ᰁ쀰⤀㿌꼄꾕㰯뿿썠껡虤댠蚑㨰쥡﹀譤김엀誀켹퀯⠿ﾯ薒풴厃
熦ꂈキꋏ蠢㔑뇱狑녫뼰ﯠ悮쥰⸓댱ꡂ쥴｣섻熎憮冓놉났ᎆ짯쨢ꉂ谒䅰嫈䊇鎱䍿蠳觡袰쮰껠鬱㠞ᓱ⹀㔰侜＾羟ꃿꆏ㚞㝏㡟乬ܟ䶟ｿ뼉꼗코�罙ｗཙ�ꏿ廏恿揯摿斏暟ﾯ�４༖潡㼙会᯿ⱟᵿṿᾏ↯➿Ｏ༦�ｺἨ⽎㽏뽾⧿⪯⮿﷏婟嬯蘿崟｟�ｒ�྇ᾈ龎㾊诿扏鉟鏟惯朿飏馟ﾯ뾚쾛轳潪罫转㾝꽮濿炿燏狟珯痿瘏真Ｏ齼꽽ﾭྯᾰﾢ徂菿葯㦯쀰㰠㪀뺁翂䌴烈䀰聆⃀怼�胁公賏㣿偬肵傦쯯㒁䏀䜠欠胀䁄룯ㆡ뗐따猠儺ᇉB⻳셀燂쉵윲
凰뮿ￏﾍ뽋콌�꾏뾐쾑侢짿윯졿즏쪟캯鑿鳿｟ￒ࿔ᾨﾞྠᾡꋿ퀯ꓯꕏꙟ띯ꢏ／꾪뾫㾲俧忨濩翪돿됯딿뙏챏췏�쿵࿂ῃ忳濴ﺟ퉏ˏϏӟ％쿘�ￛ漇῞／῭⼘㼙会⼍`⿰䉎뇀籋俼忽濾╟⎟⓯⛿✏⨟ǯﾟ漆漯缰輱鼲⼒༉Ἂయⴿཟၯⅿኟﾟ缾뼔켕鼳伜뽃콄�䙿ᷯḿ 䁯㍿哲槼䩭⧿䩿⭟㦟侏ｐ齔ὓ⽔ｗ켮⽈罜巿序徟㖯㘯㜿㡏慟？缺輻鼼꼽뼾켿�䋿䣿䥯灿燏狟珯替罋轌齍轭콷佖潘替烈
絛粿緟蓯聯／ᾁ�꾈뽠侌徍澎羏拿捏摟敯西术梟榯ﾲ⽻龖꾗㽩佪뾙潬쾞滿澏辟盿ꐟꔏꘟꜯཷ᩸鹢抋辪⽸㽹稉⁋쁦瓰昭ၡ業祬°慐特獵ཻ䡏㇀Ⴠ눝爐Áꁺ桐쐮⹄ꁺ偒詁謏？侭⦶䪬쾷侮徯澰羱닿몏薟號롯衿쎏셿ￏ�ￄ쿈徶뿊俍忎쿿큯酿鈏錟鐯锿쭏＿徛澜羝쾿龟꾠뾡쾢ꏿ꧟ꡏ묿蜟⦼檾䖾楳敺₽홡⺰瀵뽴톯䏕澘灭ゼ散炵攀楶睥匠㡵数��糀瀠敄異炼僯炂镴탮瓀½捩₿爮퀢釯샰빩⁰ﱏ晦惱郯ð�廙⊅疰ꃱ畡漠낃��
샛샮뱆槱慤픢攠肾䋶ꏰ茟�Σ챟Ｏ志��￫ᇒ˓㔌र厰ꃹ䂴⋭犰炾ꃹቧﲠ瑥⼏㼐⿼�䣵哶⃜僛�፡穰ﾠ㈳㤳ᘹឯᖿￏ漛缜伉༅ἆ⼇㼈ἣ웿죿☏෯⧿☟<泰뱵⚡‣㌴ㄻሸ㈐破㘵〳Ⳑ퇿ヤソ⺑숰⼥缣舤ㅡ０缴뼤�꿉缷漮㼪伫⳿ⵟṯᵟ䁯䆟㾯꼡뼢Ｖ佈꼻꾼罺㿿乿俯䳿㱏㷯凿ㅿ˒⸱ሸ堠㐐퐮㜰䠸䧏䨿뼴ｙ作㽓佔录潖恿䍯䓟䋯替柯懑磼䘺䜿敏廏忟惯齌꽍뽎㽱�齵㽢揿摏ㅟ㊯
コᬠ漬嫏ￏ꾀ｾ｝콿ᾂ⽹㽺佻糿硟椯橿梏貟趿诏⽭㽮龄꾅澔쾇轳齴譫梭ꃱ饦鬠琀瀠⼺眯ゞ昮沔榐䂙淰∯輠駠Ꮀ馀搠扟僛歮첚胲㱥摬抏炞Û킴筴䠀偙剅䥌⁋뾝쪞屜絮綾↡炡ꂴ燧⠱뽏꾗侈徉澊殛羣鑭쾕ᾁᾯ羖㾭ᾄྮ龱ꟿꠏꤟꨯ鬿鉿鍿늏ｏ꾴뾵쾶�羺�伧ꗿ㣿뿏엏욟잯좿짏꿍⾿徰⿒㿓俔忕㿝迿声쒠뱷쾢辸轀륋뗐ꄯ盰쿑ῐ홧뿁뎼迚鿛꿜뿝駐턶륐쇟挠쀙냂𢡄썎洀ꀙ忄쿗끾ῥ훳㎀혶迉ꕠ톰ァ㉳쇖뱦횁ｷ膼鿪꿫뿬쿭⿍濁싿썿
첟촏츟Ｏ忶㾐侑꿶뿷㿾�탿톟횯ٿܟि�／Ῑ俟＂濡翢蓣Ⴏᆏ戕냳걤摰眭ꀚ桴놹Ⴚ敭浵¹픗撐渠傸旮ጛ윙觳Ა닶痠鵲롰䍠鋳ᵗ맛Ԁ搠㏐チ¢删弔漕℟☿뿯쿮缬輭鼮�♢㉢䘉齲氰ќ㏃⇊⤐䐠癡楄揀敫⁹㉛鶿荆쀥삸潴䐺㠮Ҵ捀삞潹捦瑡数‼㡮걠╰⻐枰澠羡蚢켺�꓿ÿ㾪䃟㳯㟣ਏ㉏뵟ᢳ뭝벿䣏ຯㆲ脤拼♲⤉ᮁנּ䳀䩯㼹켳䝇ṓ㔡㚯殿蒗桔摳祡郴呣먀攐扭炬ꃴ䤸ℝ郲㨲じﰠ䵐ཌྷ
⽏㽐佑归䞽吸灄彔潕ꙫ蜰瀥Ⴂ郴楔潭瀘㧹䄀央娿孏屟嵯獿轞㡇捃彠潡桖�뀟䴠냳䃳륹㠀﹔鵇Ṱ映摡敟景板잏齨꽩蝓扵㱪呐錿彬桢慃퀗嘠炬嘀㳠盀珠熿ǿ齸뽺콻潿ｾᾄ⾅蛿蜿ഏฟ༯舿＿�ﾌྎᾏ⾐㾑侒従铿⑯╏♟❯⡿⦏⪟ﾯἰ⼱ﾡྣᾤﾖ羀臿芏莟ꪯﰟ﴿걏ꣿ쾩�쾈ﾴྶᾷ⾸諿譟豯长겯靯飏駟ﾚ�ᾝ⾞쾥侠⿇쾦줟쩏쭟챯롿䓲扗꿶성抱坷⁐䕵瀘큩垐䓐‱䤺⃑뉯ᬐ㨀煰�‐偅술텑燎据倛焠쁗㺟ῐ퇑ᮑ퍐瓡큵螐珑倛
빹⠠剂ꃴ㧾쀝瀘ꃕ䃔郐䀘텯헰䕂•탆탔ｴ폕끹䀼凖蘼侭微澯䫿䯏냟넏눟댯븿ｿ迡鿢꿣뿤Ᾱ￫맿몟뮯벿뷏뼿쇿／ῂ⿃쿯俅忆濇翈쳿ￏ?ŏɟׯ／㿴꼅㿝％༇輍ሯጿᑏᕟ說ￏ��弐ῶ⿷㿸濻⅟ﱏﵿᚏѯ☏➏ﾟ꼨뼩쨪䇖務⃘郐㫷푰ᬠ旐냒䀺胔ꀼ氰灯呭팑炐鍰逤聅楴䁣映=⿿팁埀� 揀㻰ῐ㛰穵㨱灀=戰猨헰竿�టഏ搛퀀徐儞ビ䘳ㅅ뇐퀲撐폧퐀䑰楀呧퐐堠﹐㉷퉑틐竁�헁툠ﾀビ恄䓓恅ှ⇔慄켴㖳㛟퐭핷睠⋘틿⃐퍰푰
퀠㪐ぢ햁﵃ℱ㰻㶟ද��䕯픏逜㼲榐匳㩳䂂翋⁄瀲퀠務焻パ�灺섯䁰�盐匰㽂䏷㙏�撐偘瀠偘㏼㼠䂐⽓₠판䅰봕틒퉩틐톰픁卂釕㳿䭂揑盀䧑㐞䶿䒿｟潅罆뼍켎�Ἔ寿尯崿幏ᙟ擏斏暟ﾯ众弘漙缚輛�꼝뼞槟≯⓿┏☟⬯ﾟ꼬�ｺོ罟轠齡拿涯翟問囏翟肟螯Ｏ쾂콧�ﾍྏ轳潪毿汿涏覟濿炿燏痟／ｳὶ⽷ྐ꽽⾠㾡ꋷꍏꑟ䥫ꃕ傅퀺泡郔턿䋓䇔悙䄰ㄿㅅ휓�䁒㤑榡㝢您ꌰ䋕ぎ驓₀�ꭥ퍀ꠠ톡䡱퇓傚ヿ퀰餠咰薟亏꺟꽿��僒⃘샚郓马ㄠ另
斨戨愯흷曰发浠䴠ǐ剆�퇐〰饇毀Ⱥꇘ剧굹䭸㱏倃摀勳틡䪰䁵圠墿雏춟啈倱齀ダ㨶픑彐焺嗕ᅁ닑っ掀퍿�해㰳ꤐ픡턑䔁溼剶 ⾀겢厁⅌㳭猡䁐悧큣�⼓뼺伳б澱羲��횐襬뒐湣郖㱥匀ﾒ脰상₈烓膬ꡀ䂞퉿グꯁ㬗뙱촰�仕勸偈䁐섰灓郘䧿왑쀱귡骣傀鍀㩠艓狌묬벿뷏䣟さ맂ǒ潥瀯䂫ꇑ䰠′蜴袟풯ￏ쾊ﾕ㿙�忛濜迡醿鈯錿鑏镟ｯ꿟辗龘꾙뾚쾛�黿ꃿꔏꑿ刺縏ｯ违鿞뿼뿠뿇쿈﷿ﺯֿ?য়૯／Ἅ鿱翨迩鿪輎뿬쿭
憎ﾯ뿻㼞伟张漡ᨭꁏ낷ꣿヒ㮲ឣ쾡企㲠렱뽅솪倘莨ꅏㆴ瀯띯ﾰ넰態焻₨䀑ꎶ㯯꺡ͯ㚟䧜瀄›㮍沰ㅒ⋀灬ݦ�뇄瀗ꁏ닎炴㥡㎐﯀疫焲䅨솀쭳冰⛀셐ꁏ慒偩⫰ڟݿﾏ鼈켓漅缳輴鼵꼶缎㳿㷟㻯ჿᄏሟጯ＿引漖缗輘뽁꼚뼛᷏⏟≏儯刯匿呏｟켷�ｖＺ⽆꼪뼫뼄埿壯忿孿䀟搟支昿ｏ彧�뽂콃�콣佢䧿䨟䴯䱟獏丿佯桿뽟ｕ罸轹齺꽻�둄ｱ｝龰འὡ�㽣潮菿萏蜟蚿栿谏赯蹿ﾏ龏콳꽪뽫콬ྌ辊ｯ燿爏生瑏鬿癿睟遯ﾟ뾠쾡��澈羉ꟿ
讟隟胏脯갿꣏ꦏﾟ꾪뾫뾐쾴�ﾷ侒鏿鑟镯걿霿颟馯骿ￏ�ﾝ龥ᾠ辥龦Έ쩿쬯찿뽏괯냤꺠㲉촇㈘괰无〰⸱烖텧㸊俏辰뇿늟뎯ힿ훯휿��ｯ῍鿟꿠뿡쿢Ὰ⾻㾼뷿뼿쁯셿슏쎟쒯쿅�忍濎�꺗⽠♁禰ူば湀慦煭퀯㩹〻ﰱ⛑窐旀›㈱텰쓣⡆⦐擀耰倥ꀧカ羀犰2⩢愠倨烄ふ椀倱1⦇✰眰A떢倱�琀⥷蟀倯1浭湵퀁➽槐쀰ჭ倱퀧⡥�儰Ăװ抑IJ逩ⵃ㋀漀Ⴏ慃灮턆急ꅿ܀昱ĝ槐îꄀ䄨浥�逨敹〃ᄧ�⼐ﵱ⽤⦊
١Ʋ펔뾑菫Ɪ㿺蜌샩ㄨ〯村䀲耰灵ᄅ倱ﹱ͵̰ѱ゠ՐڰꞱ)逧'硥䄉ɴ⡕⡀䰆适䀉⿳チ摰ͤሡPㆡ꽐贁뀂鄭ꈥ⥤湰⟿┐ⵠ⛐ᐣĻヱ｀鄅퀩ሃꄐ儒愩脰ꌁ倒ሉူ﹣⩴Рᒱଥ❓㆑㉠＠僼儖态ı킭ೠയ฿ཏ♕࠲❣脆ꐰ儰愙툩⇿�╿⚏⪟⠿⦿﷏鼭אָ⻲㋟㍯㑿ﾏ鼵濥翦迧鿨伯뿪쿫ﳣ狰ᥧⵠ拶個翸迹彈潉罊轋㳿ﮟﲏﶟ䒯亿⯿ⲯ켭뼻�ྮᾯ潔罕｛埿墟徯ㅟ䱏捿擟旯ཧ꼷뼸켹�罨＼༾㿯娓
ୀऒ擠뀆热䁆『Ꝁ獱灒⸶㔲᧿剠ૐȠሱ牰缐
끯ꀔ䄥ɴﭒ녯､ロ愙恇큛煇뽮濧烏䇓撠剹矰秿笏遄割矿₯殇㓼㢞怆쀊၆湧热灐Ꝁ镴灒猰絒ｏ彾輠齧ᅅ㽫彰齳꽴痿皿矏翟禟軿粟紟輯使嶀ᾂ㜮刵羔侅徆澇羈䌿⾙齃䓗骯崿扃鮟赢侯ᮟ꽐뵑頰鳯䂇瑉玔毐䄥䱆ﱫㇾㄿ、覩ņ瀤ꁙ⾥镯屿¼᭡晠热납쁴獰⼺琯ᄄ狴Ю⽡着ꁀ䁚偁斴彰뀁怗ꥫ耈酤時ꂵ怙뀛笀奈䕐䱒㡉䭎넠늏梟局챮絽况ꂵ獲ၝꅍㇾ潞ﾥާ讂煒䂩ꜽ漐၆怆耜睯ӝ砠Ñယ醿ਭʀＡ灒ဗ瀤澩运鿑틡㊢樮퍰퐯숿뼿潢ﾛ佨Ή⿈
酡－彝羺罟࿊꿑ￏ࿑ῒ폿혯짿�ퟯꑭ株槯ཫὬ⽭뾑월肍럽撠ྑꋟ苦醓￦遄ଡ଼忭ðﾠ꿁徖澗苿긯�鷯鸟褯ｿ辊龋꾌忺㿱�忬㼆鏿﨏队飶颕ޖﾽ逜킳⡢㔱씳〟ἰ㔰⤱翹꼋ﯿ쮟ﺿڟ㾿腢ŕꟀ羰¸Ꝁ厁灒КﴒﹱѣᏟ푯ꙿ勯䱡⸸�栖桔乄␑ᨀ‑孯厀嫷띀연猰逿〢ᅻ䇠⃐邿숁ယ쀁켮뾫쾬�꼔偽䁱쀿Ë嫰歀畯」？넋뜚玁瀭敶뽙獐℮♐¶堮獵뼯뼱⺐쀿顰㽸䅥∰㵀암畀끁⽨僰삾䂶륀ሰ祭¶惀끲롡Ｂ龳꾴
뾵즶缯輰鼱꼲㏟릸멟⭯䌀耹텁룗☀쀰玁ဢ쁣⚒Ｐ匸켕濌鼾裎䰨俕Ἶᕯ䢿䙯䞿䣏䧟䷯鿚꿼뿽忠濡翢�鼈奏察啯帏｟㿯彡ཚ뽠･㽝棿戯恏歯戟掏撟溯ꔟ쬘ͣ珠㑳䶰삾件惀僅⍬势ữ䊏痢쀑㘳⥃ꁱ큎戄䏽昡ꨄ⽹⑺콺�粿緯䷿⁏⅟ꡯ㉍輣羽䘧鐳₱퀬耙㠠⑰祲퀐潲ₘ瀠疺ᵩ널쁀摑뀦ϡ矠蝁놢㡀쁋瀒5ႈ㍷랰菡鸞툦湵킈菀쀦䂱愦ᆷ샠衠旲炟䄧衢㬐;띃裐☐䌑走㗑愀䀛Ħံ掼᭩蝀뾡❀涐퀃濸敹りᆿ퀐엷쁐ᤰ皀脺쌀焧늍衿㺔ᗿ
膋錿炇郀⼁賏◁鿀녠甐䅰녱ﱀ畱り熊ꂋ炃側&趽犱₿邿䆐襴㥕滁蝰䰆邉瀒挺᧿ྀ詀Ⱑ蟠놡血覍⩉礠怭뼠쁐ᇡﺀ㕷ᄀ鶀溡魰蠻⳱ﾳĄ↊ꆗ耧Ⴑ针ⷾډነ炃䁁裿譀鮱鈥♓᪡踑鴁ﭑ쀬ቤ㱰莠䇐錱缯㾔侕喖戭掏ႈﹰ셨谁Ҳ訁腡䳟＿꾨彎潰羬辭龮꾯뾰듿冏䊏릟먏묟밯瘿＿ｓཕὖ꾽影潲罳轴痿皟瞯碿秏翟聏쵟｟濎翏运濃徂澃羄辅蛿螟袯覿諏诟賯軿／ᾏ⾐㾑侒ﾦྨ⿔辖響颟馯骿鯏鳟鷯鿿／ᾠ⾡㾢侣徤澥羦濦ꪯꮿ닏댯떏｟促忿漀༄輂鼃
羷伈뷿ୟ೯༏븟뿯쇿／ῂ켈㿄俅忆濇켐迉쫿튟찿ế팟‿ℿ≏｟漣伖㿕俖志鼜翙迚���／ῤ�忨濩翪迫／⿶㿷俸㼸伹强迼﷿ﺟ֯؏टࢿ匿勯＿体彔潕㽙弊⼏뽝콞忿惟ჯᆿዏᏟᓯ寿ﾯ⼘㼙뼪弛콬缝輞▟⌏珯琟甯┿⟿／Ἠ⼩㼪伫弬漭缮輯ヿ㆟㊯㎿㓏㗟㛯㣿／뽌�㼻似弽漾缿轀䇿䊟䎯䒿䗏䛟䟯䧿／Ὂ⽋ᾋ⾌㾍潏罐潹埿ꃯ娿朏꓿ꔏꠟꞿ＿侨ᾬ㽝齶龰꾱뾲쾳揿撟斯暿뗏栿槯맿ｿ辺龻꾼뾽쾾�쏿쐏씟옯윿졏쥟쩯ｿ迋
鿌ꏍ쁼끿⥽슷콐퀿쵏칏퍟풯햿ￏ�࿚Ί㿝俞�橯㈽㠴ƭ㉻緿ﾏ鿪ῧ㿬俭忮ﾏ鿻꿼뿽⿹㿺忿漀缁ﻇտ褣澐正悐旾ꬅ⿓⼇䀆Ὦ罽轾翿肟膯芿菏蓟藯蟿／ᾈ⾉혐侎徏澐粑侞鿿ୟ赿鋕鍯鑿閏隟ﾯ뾗쾘�ﾛྜྷᆞႢꇿꏿἍ떯럿렏ꤟ습̵抢摯ѹ焭뭱༈瀃괷ก索素耺